"Defendants' unreasonable interference with plaintiffs'
rights is not founded on a legitimate restriction of the manner,
place or time of expression but rather reveals a wholesale attack
on traditional and time honored rights secured in the Constitution
and Bill of Rights and designed to protect against despotic
government."
and because this Court led him to believe that there might still be
a faint glimmer of hope there was still a person who honestly
believed:
"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in
the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws,
whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of
government is to afford that protection. (The) Government of the
United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws,
and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high
appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a
vested legal right..." (Gunther constitutional Law, University
Casebook Series, Tenth Edition, pages 4 and 5, citing Marbury v.
Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).
G. On three separate occasions Magistrate Burnett ordered
plaintiff William Thomas to stay out of Lafayette Park during
certain hours. On one occasion Magistrate Burnett ordered
plaintiff Ellen Thomas to stay out of Lafayette Park from 10:00
p.m. to 6:00 a.m. In each event a District Court judge had the
good appreciation of liberty to reverse the Magistrate.
In the Federal Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Mr.
Martinez makes quite a to-do about the fact that all of the
defendants deposed denied being involved in a conspiracy such as
plaintiffs allege. But the record reflects that all the defendants
had selective memory (if not mass amnesia), and the Magistrate
sometimes went to considerable lengths in assisting them to "clear
up the record" (e.g. Tr. Ex. 36).
Particularly in light of the fact that he has not bothered to
explain himself at any length, it seems the Magistrate's denials
have been either arbitrary, intentionally prejudicial, or an
example of profound misunderstanding. Plaintiffs are able to
arrive at only those possibilities by which to explain the
Magistrate's decisions. For the above mentioned reasons, and other
similar ones, plaintiffs would rather not have Magistrate Burnett
in a position to mold the Complaint. Unless this Court can provide
some other explanation, plaintiffs move this court to reverse the
Magistrate on all points covered herein, to immediately relieve
the Magistrate of any further role in these proceedings, and to
reassume control of this case.
CONCLUSION
If this Court disagrees with the foregoing premises
--particularly without amplification on that disagreement for
plaintiffs' edification, and the facilitation of justice through
understanding -- plaintiffs will be left no alternative but to
assume that they were mistaken to have believed those idealistic
observations which were made by Judge Oberdorfer, and which
prompted this litigation.
Once plaintiffs have made that determination they will be
justified in abandoning their search for Justice, or even a fair
hearing, within a system of creatures whose words mean nothing, and
whose actions expose their ideals as hollow shams.
It is understandable how entrapped human beings, dealing for
their very "living accommodations" in words meaningless through
their duplicity, might be content to generate thousands of pages of
nonsense; however, after the multi-thousands of hours they have
devoted to this task, plaintiffs are beginning to think they may
have better things to do with their time than try to reason with
the Supremely Unreasonable.
Respectfully submitted this _____ day
of _________, 1986.
____________________________________
William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
1440 N Street NW, #410, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542
____________________________________
Ellen Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
Peace Park Antinuclear Vigil
P.O. Box 272l7, DC 20038
(202) 462-3542
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, William Thomas, hereby state that, on this ___ day of
_____, 1986, I served copies of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF
APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE'S ORDER OF OCTOBER 8, 1986 upon:
Assistant US Attorney Michael Martinez
555 4th Street NW, Judiciary Building, Washington, DC 20004
and
Candida Staempfli, Assistant Corporation Counsel
District Building, Washington, DC 20001
Respectfully submitted this _____ day
of October, 1986.
____________________________________
William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park